Brasilia is four hours behind us. So in the UK group matches will kick off at 5pm, 8pm, 11pm and, er, 2am. So expect some late nights. Hence too why the knock out stages kick off in the afternoon - prime time for Europe.

4.04pm BST

Dlscott81 asks:

What do you think the average cost of getting to the World Cup and staying in Brazil is going to be for two weeks? (Or what will be the cheapest way to get to Brazil?)

@Dlscott81 - No two ways about it, this is going to be a very expensive World Cup for travelling fans. Fifa's crazy insistence on not holding the group stages in geographical "hubs" betrays the extent to which they don't really care about those coming from abroad to follow their team. Prices in Rio are roughly the same as those in London, though hotels are likely to be cheaper in other cities. However, reports coming back from England's friendly in Brazil suggested £200 for an unremarkable hotel in Rio was nothing out of the ordinary. But when one fan asked how much they would be charging during the World Cup he was told they were planning to ask £700. For one night.

Things will probably follow the usual pattern - eye watering prices that come down shortly before the tournament when it emerges there are tens of thousands of hotel rooms still available. Hopefully Fifa and Match, their accommodation agency, have learned some lessons from South Africa. Though that might be asking too much.

In such a huge country, getting around is also going to be expensive and a challenge if you want to follow a single team. There is no train network to speak of and while luxury coaches are comfortable and safe, once it gets to the knock out stages the long distances may make them impractical. All of which will put extra strain on an internal flight network that is reliant on ongoing airport upgrades throughout the country. Expect some frayed nerves and hefty credit card bills.

4.02pm BST

dannytol asks:

Will the ball manufacturers release a new, roundest-ever ball that moves like a drunken swallow and leads to some crazy 35-yard goals in the opening fixtures? If so, will it be called something like Futseo, Tourneo or Mondiplex?

@dannytol - Surely Adidas will have learned their lesson and produce something that less resembles a Woolworths "flyaway' than the Jabulani. Regardless, history suggests I'll spend at least half the first week of the tournament writing about the bloody thing.

4.01pm BST

Abhinav009 asks:

History goes against European teams in World Cups held in South America. Is this one likely to buck that trend?

@Abhinav009 - I certainly think that in this globalised age - with players form all countries plying their trade in the biggest leagues - that it's less of an issue than it was in the past. But the heat is bound to be a factor. Greg Dyke is probably adding it to his list of plausible excuses as we speak.

4.00pm BST

dannytol asks:

How much of the tournament's success do you think will depend on the achievements of the Brazil team?

@dannytol - As with any World Cup or Olympics, the exploits of the host nation will have a significant bearing on its success (however you measure it). That will be more the case than ever in Brazil, I suspect.

@dannytol - 24 (though, as noted below, that may be partly due to nostalgia). The shift from 24 to 32 does not seem to have appreciably diluted the quality in the same way that I fear a move to a 24 team European Championships will.

3.54pm BST

MrMondypops asks:

The World Cups aren't really as bad as people like to make out, isn't just a case of everything always being better in the past, no matter what it is....

@dannytol - The best things are too numerous to list but near the top is witnessing the collective mania that comes over s country when it hosts the World Cup (something that even Fifa's cookie cutter approach has yet to succeed in quashing).

The frustrations are the same tedious ones that come with covering anything (but magnified given the distances involved) - planes, trains, automobiles, hotels, power and wi-fi.

@ROMhack - Regardless, you can be sure that the host broadcaster will spend much of their time trying to pick them out. Given the host country, I suspect stereotypical shots of Brazilians will figure highly.

3.41pm BST

BanBandsBanksy asks:

If ITV or the BBC didn't do a very good job of coverage, is it realistic that Russia 2018 could be on Sky or BT? Or is there still a 'crown-jewel' TV list that would prevent this?

@BanBandsBanksy - Yes, the World Cup finals remain on the crown jewels list which protects them for "free to air" broadcasters. A lot could change between now and 2018. Although there isn't currently much political will to revisit the topic, I suspect it will come up again between now and then. Fifa, for obvious reasons, is keen to see the end of the legislation and would like the right to sell coverage to the highest bidder.

3.36pm BST

LenCo asks:

Will we see Fifa tax exemption and pop-up courts much like in South Africa? Are all these corporate shenanigans now the primary basis for selecting a host for the tournament? I've always thought that the lack of unconditional acceptance of such demands was the reason that England never stood a chance of hosting

@LenCo - Yes, Brazil has signed up to all the usual "state within a state" provisions required by Fifa (and, indeed, the IOC). The "Fifa courts" were one of the more eye opening aspects of the World Cup there (read Marina Hyde's memorable dispatch here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/20/world-cup-2010-fans-marketing-justice-fifa).

To be fair, I'm not sure that it's the reason why England has not won the right to host a World Cup - there are a host of other ones. And after all, London had to sign up to the IOC's virtually identical demands to host the Olympics. But Romario, the Brazilian footballer turned MP, did make reference (in slightly base terms) to the extent to which he felt his country had failed to push back on any of Fifa's demands...

“Fifa comes here, and sets up a state within our state, and it will leave with $2bn-$3bn in profits,” Romario told BBC radio. “And then what? What about the white elephants, the stadiums, costing nearly $2bn? That could have been spent on education and health – much more important for our country," he said.

“The best for Brazil is to have the World Cup, but there are some contractual obligations between Fifa and the host nation that we can’t accept. If they went to Germany with 100 demands they would get 30. If they went to the US they would get 10. When they came to Brazil with those 100, they got 90. Brazil just opened its legs. And until the end of the World Cup, Fifa just told Brazil what to do.”

Argentina have looked excellent in qualifying for the World Cup. Wouldn't it be just like them to steal Brazil's thunder and win in Rio? I have them down as dark horses. With Messi having an actual role in the side and flourishing, who's to stop him cementing his legacy as perhaps the best ever?

@aashman94 - Not sure if Argentina qualify as dark horses - I think they'll be among the favourites. One of my favourite memories of South Africa was the bonkers circus surrounding Maradona's Argentina, but it certainly didn't help the team. As you suggest, if Messi is to go down as the best ever he really needs to deliver in a major tournament.

3.27pm BST

messibalelennon asks:

Brazil have invested 9billion of taxpayer's money into the World Cup, banking on it to help and grow their country. I have always wondered exactly what the long-term benefits are to the host nation?

@messibalelennon - Good question. The Brazilian government would tell you it will help seal the country's status as one of the world's economic superpowers and, along with the Rio 2016 Olympics, show the world that it is about much more than samba and beaches. In short, it will burnish Brazil's image as one of the most important and influential countries on earth and show its best side to the world.

And, as with any major event, there is the economic case that it helps accelerate investment in infrastructure - roads, airports, hotels and so on. Whether or not investing billions in delivering a sporting event is really the best way to go about this is an argument that will rage long beyond next year's World Cup.

Rio's mayor Eduardo Paes said this week that Fifa didn't care about legacy, while the IOC did - an interesting distinction I thought from someone who has to deal intimately with both.

3.24pm BST

Elpoppa asks:

Brazil are going into the World Cup with a squad of mostly young and very promising players. Spain (and to an extent Germany and Argentina) are arriving with squads of experienced players at about the peak of their ability. Does the fact that Brazil aren't going there with the likes of Kaka, Ronaldinho, Robinho et al, in their swansongs, represent cultural problems with Brazilian football? it seems many of their 'stars' simply lack the longevity of Europeans. I for one, doubt the current Brazil side has the ability, or perhaps experience to win the thing.

@Elpoppa - It's a major concern for most Brazilians. Zico summarises some of the structural issues here in an interview with our man in Latin America, Jonathan Watts - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/10/zico-brazil-world-cup-2014

I'm not sure the issue is one of player longevity - there's plenty of talent there. But if they hadn't panicked and changed managers they might be in a better position now.

There certainly seems to be increasing panic among Brazilians that they won't have a side capable of winning the tournament and laying to rest the ghosts of 1950 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/jun/11/world-cup-brazil-1950-hosts). Which would be a great shame for the tournament as a whole as well - for it to take flight, Brazil need to reach the latter stages.

@molefromtheministry - I think that's a very good question. For the Fifa bandwagon to keep rolling it's essential that the World Cup (from which it derives 90% of its revenues) continues to be seen as the pinnacle of the footballing world. I think most would struggle to argue that was the case in South Africa where, as you say, the group stages were particularly dire.

Much of it comes back to the endless wrangling over the football calendar and the extent to which players are fatigued at the end of a long European season, and the ongoing club v country issues.

But short of radical solutions it's hard to see how you could tweak the format to encourage more attacking football.

@Arsenalprakash - Given the FA themselves are saying it will be between eight and 18 years before we win a major tournament, I think it's fair to say the odds should be a lot longer than they will be this time next year. Assuming England qualify of course, which is far from a given at this stage.

@dannytol - I think there'd be widespread disappointment if England weren't there. No matter how badly the team play in major tournaments, the rest of the world seems to want to play against us (perhaps the two facts are not unrelated). And after the dark days, England's rehabilitated and large travelling support was rightly praised in Germany (mostly) and South Africa for adding to the atmosphere around the tournament.

3.10pm BST

Owen is in the comments section answering questions

Hi all. Looking out at the slate grey skies of Kings Cross in June, have to say I'm looking forward to Brazil 2014 - despite all the issues that are rightly being raised with a year to go, from the preparedness of the stadiums to the performance on the field of the hosts and the extent to which Fifa's travelling circus benefits the host country (or not).

@dannytol - Neymar seems a decent shout. Much may depend on how his debut season with Barcelona goes. But of all the Brazil players who will be plastered over billboards across the country, you have to assume he will be to the fore.

1.56pm BST

Good afternoon

Owen Gibson will be online from 3pm to answer your questions about the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.